Why is there artificial script written in this game to enforced the Coalition?This destroys all creative paths that a player may want to go to for the game enjoyment, otherwise you may as well go read a book of the Napoleonic era be done with it. Rather than explore the if's and why's of various ways players may want to travel to play this game.

When Austrian political attitude to France is neutral, Then mid way through the first year, a script writes in the Austrian Alliance with GB without any diplomatic visit on both sides and in fact Austria trying to negotiate a deal with France and diplomats being exchanged and both sides to try and get an alternative result IS interfering. A truly independent game should allow for these factors. Imagination or skill should be encouraged, rather than forced to conform to a narrative view.

I enjoy charting my own path in the campaign games and rarely use the peace treaty scripts, as I am too far along with my own agenda. I pretty much follow 1805 and 1806 with attacks on Austria and Prussia as it happened historically, but from 1807 on I am on my own. I attack Russian earlier, and go through the Ottoman empire before heading west towards England and finally Spain. I am saying this, because although the scripts are there and give the game a historical feeling, you can divert from history in many enjoyable ways.

gazfun wrote:When Austrian political attitude to France is neutral, Then mid way through the first year, a script writes in the Austrian Alliance with GB without any diplomatic visit on both sides and in fact Austria trying to negotiate a deal with France and diplomats being exchanged and both sides to try and get an alternative result IS interfering. A truly independent game should allow for these factors. Imagination or skill should be encouraged, rather than forced to conform to a narrative view.

I have a fairly limited knowledge of Napoleonic history, but from my understanding, Austria joined the Third Coalition in reaction to Napoleon declaring the Kingdom of Italy in the territory of what is now northern Italy, which was at the time historically a sphere of influence of Austria. So in my mind Austria remaining out of the Third Coalition would be tantamount to rescinding her claim to northern Italy.

This however does not mean that France would abandon her ambitions on Austrian territory. In fact, it would give France an even better situation in some aspects. Western Austria would be extremely exposed with French allied Bavaria in the north and the Kingdom of Italy in the south, both easily reinforced with French forces, of which Austria, standing alone outside of the Third Coalition, could do nothing.

So, how to put this into game terms. Let's say, Austria remains out of the Third Coalition. But she still has historical claims on the territory of the Kingdom of Italy. This is a point of contention with France. So there should be a strong discontent between France and Austria on this point alone. One might create an option for Austria to rescind her claim to northern Italy, but that would have to be at a cost to Austrian NM. This might mitigate Frances ambitions against Austria, but certainly not ban them. And with Austria outside the Third Coalition, she would be standing alone. That seems to me to make Austria an easy and logical target for France, for England could hardly unite her forces with Russia in western Europe with neutral Prussia and Saxony in between. France would have her choice of what to do next.

If Austria did not rescind her claims to norther Italy, that might be an automatic CB for France. Now France would not necessarily have to attack Austria on that fact alone. But with Austria outside the Third Coalition, with the threat of intervention from Austria over the Kingdom of Italy, it would give France not only an incentive against Austria, but also make Austria a most logical target.

But if I were France, I would not only want Austria to rescind her claims to the KoI, but also to the rest of historic Italy (Triest and the territory west of there), and anything else I might be able to take. With Austria, basically isolated, it makes every move against her that much easier.

So, it would be possible to have Austria be able to decide to remain outside the Third Coalition, but I would find it to be a very poor decision.

So my question is, what would be the point of keeping Austria outside of the Third Coalition? What possibility would be gained by this?

Colonel Marbot wrote:I enjoy charting my own path in the campaign games and rarely use the peace treaty scripts, as I am too far along with my own agenda. I pretty much follow 1805 and 1806 with attacks on Austria and Prussia as it happened historically, but from 1807 on I am on my own. I attack Russian earlier, and go through the Ottoman empire before heading west towards England and finally Spain. I am saying this, because although the scripts are there and give the game a historical feeling, you can divert from history in many enjoyable ways.

Colonel Marbot, how far have you been able to play the game without a crash? What patch are you using and how far have you managed to go?

I ask because now that I am in late 1808, my game crashes every few turns, or so. It also runs fairly hot, which means that my fan could be causing it to crash (but my computer is only two years old, top of the line specs for summer of 2014). Also, I've patched my game as I have continued it, meaning that I have yet to go back and restart a whole campaign with the latest patches.

Captain_Orso wrote:I'm assuming that the January 1805 scenario is in question here.

I have a fairly limited knowledge of Napoleonic history, but from my understanding, Austria joined the Third Coalition in reaction to Napoleon declaring the Kingdom of Italy in the territory of what is now northern Italy, which was at the time historically a sphere of influence of Austria. So in my mind Austria remaining out of the Third Coalition would be tantamount to rescinding her claim to northern Italy.

This however does not mean that France would abandon her ambitions on Austrian territory. In fact, it would give France an even better situation in some aspects. Western Austria would be extremely exposed with French allied Bavaria in the north and the Kingdom of Italy in the south, both easily reinforced with French forces, of which Austria, standing alone outside of the Third Coalition, could do nothing.

So, how to put this into game terms. Let's say, Austria remains out of the Third Coalition. But she still has historical claims on the territory of the Kingdom of Italy. This is a point of contention with France. So there should be a strong discontent between France and Austria on this point alone. One might create an option for Austria to rescind her claim to northern Italy, but that would have to be at a cost to Austrian NM. This might mitigate Frances ambitions against Austria, but certainly not ban them. And with Austria outside the Third Coalition, she would be standing alone. That seems to me to make Austria an easy and logical target for France, for England could hardly unite her forces with Russia in western Europe with neutral Prussia and Saxony in between. France would have her choice of what to do next.

If Austria did not rescind her claims to norther Italy, that might be an automatic CB for France. Now France would not necessarily have to attack Austria on that fact alone. But with Austria outside the Third Coalition, with the threat of intervention from Austria over the Kingdom of Italy, it would give France not only an incentive against Austria, but also make Austria a most logical target.

But if I were France, I would not only want Austria to rescind her claims to the KoI, but also to the rest of historic Italy (Triest and the territory west of there), and anything else I might be able to take. With Austria, basically isolated, it makes every move against her that much easier.

So, it would be possible to have Austria be able to decide to remain outside the Third Coalition, but I would find it to be a very poor decision.

So my question is, what would be the point of keeping Austria outside of the Third Coalition? What possibility would be gained by this?

Austria could try and assert it own empire given Turkey is bordering it with the help of France, also Prussia has Polish possessions, and also create Poland while France could attack Spain and Great Britain without any cause for worry from Austria for the deal. Or Prussia can do the same, and assert itself against GB alliance by gains in Denmark and Sweden Saxony Hesse. Russia can do the same with Turkey Against Austria and Prussia with French assistance. The alternatives can be infinite. Those who are captured by History can be imprisoned by it, which in itself limiting. I know that player want to have something more than just history they want history + a potential to make there own history. France can assert its trade to these areas providing it has the navy, to compete with GB thats the only difference.

There are two sides to every coin. In the PBEM I am playing right now, we have a couple of players who are playing this like RISK. Despite the fact that Austria is part of the Third Coalition, they have allied with France and both nations have conquered Prussia, and are driving on Moscow. The country I am playing, Britain, is trying to do what it can, but without drafts it's very risky to land an army on the continent due to the chance of sustaining heavy losses to whole elements which are irreplaceable. There is a good chance this game could end in 1806.

The point here is that even though the game has scripts, in no way does it prevent a player from doing what he wants (Coalition Austria allied with France, attacking Coalition Russia? What gives?). In fact, this alliance between the two nations has created a steamroller which is unstoppable, and...in some ways...sapped some of the fun from the game as Russia's remnants has no chance of stopping them.

It all boils down to how people like to play these games. For myself, when I play RISK then I play RISK. But when I play a game that is trying to simulate the Napoleonic Wars then I try to stay true to the times. As Britain, I could land an army in Riga and attack Russia, but I prefer to mimic British foreign policy as it was which is to a) protect our colonies and trade, while attacking French colonies and trade, and b) preserving my main army.

I'll add my own two cents to this, which is that AGEOD erred, as it admits, in departing from the tried and true 2-sided campaign approach it took in ROP and EAW. Using scripts, you can retain interesting choices even within the historical framework. There were a number of points in the real history where things could have taken a turn. For example:

- there was debate in Britain over whether to attack Russia's navy before Denmark's in 1807, which could have had a tremendous impact on Russo-British relations

- Spanish Minister Manuel Godoy many times played both sides against the middle, so to speak; it would be an interesting diplomatic sub-game to deal with the intricacies of Spanish politics and this could be handled through some sort of diplomatic decision tree

- Sweden's role in all this is also fascinating; at different times they were opposed to or supported Britain, Russia, Prussia and France

The EAW diplomacy board is one elegant approach. You could modify this by having the board "flip" or "refresh" periodically based on epochal decisions like major treaties. You could provide plenty of player choice within reasonable what ifs.

I realize there is an audience out there for RISK-style play. There is a reason why RISK, now approaching the 70th anniversary of its invention in 1957, is so durably popular. But for games purporting to model history (notice I said model, not replicate) if you take freedom of choice too far, it removes the original purpose entirely.

gazfun - On this forum it is really in bad taste to use even mild insults directed against players. I realize other forums permit this, but please, as you insist upon 'big boy' play, then use big boy dialogue.There should be a question for all games about how historically one should constrain play. Typically, in AGEOD games these constraints are most often 'house rule' rather than hardwired options, but when hardwired deterministic procedures are used, there are inevitably grounded in solid history. We all know Austria aligned with France to invade Russia. This game allows an earlier alliance. I am in such a game as Prussia and barely have a token force, yet it is an interesting exploration of an historical what-if.Your comparison to EiA or the EiANW are indicative of the likelihood you do not really understand WON. While some of the commentary in this thread is worth consideration, WON is a mature game - probably the best treatment of warfare in Napoleonic times.

By the way gents, i am in a 7 player won pbem game where all veteran wargamers are in ^^ , 4 allied coalition nations attacking France also Spain changed side and attacking now !

Ottoman is almost finished, Napoleon is in trouble, i think Prussia choosing its side is so important here, check Austria moral (122!) tho her VP not so high for now but still early in game and she is coming over Paris to support Blücher there.

Colonel Marbot, how far have you been able to play the game without a crash? What patch are you using and how far have you managed to go?

I ask because now that I am in late 1808, my game crashes every few turns, or so. It also runs fairly hot, which means that my fan could be causing it to crash (but my computer is only two years old, top of the line specs for summer of 2014). Also, I've patched my game as I have continued it, meaning that I have yet to go back and restart a whole campaign with the latest patches.

Anyway, just trying to get a comparison with your experience.

Thanks, MJ[/quote]

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to this. I only now saw the inquiry. I am currently in a campaign and up to 1810. I do have errors generated but only one has been a complete crash. Most errors allow me to continue. From an earlier version which did crash more frequently, I learned to always save the game before going to the next turn and this served me on the single time it crashed completely out.

I will say on an aside that I originally played on a older computer with Windows 8 and for any number of possible reasons did have more crash challenges than my currently Windows 10 laptop.

I'm in total agreement with Gazfun (never thought I'd write these words ) re. his criticism of accepting a hardwired script half-way through 1805.

Some of the posts have tried to rationise the script based on history or that it makes sense in the situation in mid-1805. However I believe that these rationilisations miss the point that as soon as the game starts the player is in control of diplomacy.

In one of my games I had a (brillant!) strategy of appeasing France to keep FR from attacking me (Austria) and instead attack someone else...now this plan might fail but that's my decision to make, not load a turn and find out that I've joined the Coalition and declared war on the country that I was appeasing.

This script, being automatic, is indefinsible to me. If it was an option then players could discuss and plan in advance.